1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

Not surprisingly, I'm hitting this year's November 26 with about 1 percent of the angst that I had last year's. Turning 41 just isn't the same as turning 40.

True, many of the concerns are the same: the inability to live within my means (compounded, as it is for everyone else, by the overall economy), the feeling that I'm getting dumber instead of smarter, the stunted social life  important parts of life in general falling through the cracks. But I have been working hard, on both the things that come easier to me and the things that come with more difficulty. I'm still spoiled, but I'm not more spoiled than I was a year ago. That might be progress.

The world is an expensive place, in just about every sense of the word "expensive." I'm getting a lot, but I've still got so many fiscal, physical and emotional bills to pay. It's so humbling.

But I'm grateful. And I've got galleys of a Dodger book to review this weekend. Happy Thanksgiving (in advance), everyone.

Citing the unpredictable state of the economy, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt hinted today that the team would be reluctant to sweeten the two-year contract offer that would have instantly given Manny Ramirez the second highest annual salary in the game.

40+1 - Just starting to hit your stride now.
Your best work lies ahead of you - for many years to come.
Happy Birthday.
Your children are fortunate to have such fine and loving parents.
Thank you for this site - It is the best.

"If you bring somebody in to play and pay them, pick a number, $30 million, does that seem a little weird to you?" Jamie McCourt asked in an interview at the Evergreen Recreation Center in East Los Angeles. "That's what we're trying to figure out. We're really trying to see it through the eyes of our fans. We're really trying to understand, would they rather have the 50 fields?"

10,
I bet they'll want someone more proven, as Girardi will be seen as too inexperienced to handle the Big Apple.

11,
No, thats right, he's played parts of every season in the Majors since 2001. In '01, he only played in 15 games. Then in '02 he only played in 20. He was in the minors for most of that time but became a full-time regular in '03 (When he won ROY... somehow). He was also sent down to the minors for practically all of '07 (only played in 9 MLB games) and the first half of '08. Then we picked him up.

"I think, oddly enough, maybe if things weren't guaranteed, then we could pay for it," she said. "If people can't play anymore, it's like, 'Oh well, see ya.' Different story. Whatever money they are guaranteed could be money that we could otherwise have given to community."

I... I don't know how to respond to that other than complete astonishment.

18,
Uh, yeah, I feel like an idiot for piping on about how the Dodgers were gonna spend a lot of money. Maybe they won't... But that is a terrible excuse. I'll take Manny over the 50 fields, but I don't see how they're related.

The Dodgers' payroll for next season has yet to be set, with McCourt explaining that it was important to maintain flexibility during an economic downturn

"We don't have a crystal ball," McCourt said. "I'm not smart enough to tell you how it's going to play out. Ned (Colletti) would love President-elect Obama to tell him exactly what's going to happen so I can in turn."

Whatever money they are guaranteed could be money that we could otherwise have given to the community ... and well yes ... we have guaranteed that money now will be used as a tax write-off rather than as an operating expense.

Excuse me while I throw up.

Can I now please get back the money that I just spent on my Dodger game tickets for the upcoming season? If I wanted to give that money to the community I would have done so myself.

It would be a poor negotiating stance to come out and say, "We'll pay anything to get [X player]." I don't think we'll know what they're going to do very far in advance of they're doing it, whatever it is.

I will resume this incredible journey tomorrow.
Although my worst fears for the Dodgers have not yet been realized - this smells like a fish.
I'll attribute this all to being tired at the end of the day. Tomorrow will be a better day.
Primal Scream

They're asking "fans" to tell them whether it's more important to pay for a high-priced free agent or to build 50 urban ballfields???

If they want to build 50 urban ballfields, they should do it with their own money, meaning not the daily operating revenues of the Los Angeles Dodgers, but the checks made out to Mr. and Mrs. McCourt as salary, dividends, bonuses or however they compensate themselves. Perhaps if they started a 50-ballfields foundation and asked me for a donation, I would cough one up. But to ask me as a fan if I'm willing to see the revenue I bring into the Dodgers be diverted away from the team and the fan's experience is an insulting and disingenuous guilt trip. Building youth ballparks or any other charitable activity is one outcome of running a profitable business. It is not, however, the reason the business exists.

What if you went into a department store to buy a jacket and after showing you the jacket, the salespersons said, "would you rather pay $200 for the jacket, or wouldn't you feel better about yourself if you just gave me the $200 and I could donate it to a charity of my choice? If you just buy the jacket, that's your right, but everyone will think less of you." My answer would be: Fine. I won't buy the jacket. But you also can't have my $200. I'll donate it to a charity of my choice. Or maybe I'll buy another jacket in another store.

The worst thing I can say about the McCourt's tactic: Not even Donald Stirling would do this. All those years he underinvested in the Clippers, he never told the fans that he was doing it for the sake of his charities. He just let us all think he was a cheap miser. The McCourts want to keep their money and be admired for it.

Rule 5 stays my hand here. But if this becomes a pattern, I might get a lot less interested in this team. I don't mind lousy baseball, but I don't want to be insulted.

I agree with that. If they're serious, this is a really creepy thing to do. But if it's just the McCourts yapping into the wind as a way of trying to keep the price tags low on FA's, well, it's still a creepy way of doing it. I guess I'd rather be lied to than condescended to, though.

37 They say in the article that these are two different pots of money. I don't see why they can't ask the question, I am sure my response would be in the minority. I believe that as one of Los Angeles largest businesses, they should be a good corporate citizen and invest in the community.

And whatever you think of them, they have done more than Fox did when they own the team whether it be providing scholarships to the Jackie Robinson Foundation, their cure cancer foundation and the Dodger foundation which is partnering with another corporation to fund building ballparks.

If this was Arte Moreno talking about this, the take would be Arte is straight talking, with the McCourts, it is like they are hiding aces in their sleeves.

And I don't think its fair but its everyone elses right to disagree with me.

Feel some of your angst Jon, although I have a decade on you and it only gets harder. As I was reading your post noticed that another link to the Dodger past of my youth passed away, Ethel Bradley, the wife of former mayor Tom Bradley.

I always remember seeing her on TV and at the games in person, she always seemed to be enjoying herself and definitely loved the Dodgers. She was known by many as the Dodgers number 1 fan. It is a shame she couldn't have been alive to see Obama inaugurated. The Bradley effect was talked about much in the past 6 months, and I will always remember seeing it first hand when I assisted Jon Brooks from KFWB on the night we all though Tom Bradley was going to be elected governor-and make history and ended up losing to Dukemajiaen.(sp)

Not worse, just not citizens. Corporations are inherently morally neutral. The people running them can be crooks or saints, but not the business. Anthropomorphism is cute for lolcats, but past that not very useful.

Either baseball matters or it doesn't--if it doesn't, the McCourts spent an awful lot of money buying something trivial.

DzzrtRat: Terrific post at 37. You are spot on. The McCourts would have come off better had they explained that they were going to avoid signing expensive free agents in favor of developing young players. The unctuous explanation they gave is just not acceptable. Wish it had been Eli Broad who purchased the team.

I believe that as one of Los Angeles largest businesses, they should be a good corporate citizen and invest in the community.

Sure they should devote some of their profits to community activities. Even better is to use their massive publicity power to inspire and organize community giving, harnessing the fans' compassion and commitments to a better world.

But, as with any other business, their business is their business. Tiffany sells jewelry. The Dodgers are baseball team. Before you can do anything else, you have to get that right.

If they don't think they can make money from investing in a given player, don't pay him. I don't expect them not to have a budget or to be discriminating in how they spend their money.

But to ask paying customers to give the McCourts leave to forego efforts to field the best possible team in the name of their pet charity is a form of moral bullying. I mean, the answer is obvious in a way. Of course the world would be better off if the Dodgers didn't exist, IF that meant every kid in the inner cities could play on a great ballfield. But that choice doesn't exist in the real world.

Here's the choice the McCourts could present to the fans. What's Manny or CC worth to you, fans? Are you sure that, in a recession, you'll really come that much more often? You'll watch more games on TV? So, how much are you willing to pay for that premium player. Is it worth $20 more per ticket? $50 more? I wouldn't try to ascertain that in an unscientific newspaper poll, but it would be interesting to get some answers from people. Is Manny worth a higher ticket price?

A disastrous PR move by the McCourts, no matter what the real case. I think with the current downturn, salaries could go down for ballplayers, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. And the owners could accomplish this without collusion if they just sheathed a bit of their greed. Of course the Yanks didn't help that fantasy by immediatley offering a 6 year 140mil contract.

Jamie seemed to be channeling Georgia Frontera and then Frank tried to do some damage control. After reading DT posts, Frank was to little and too late as "Georgia on my mind" was blowing in the wind.

I also loved Frank's answer to spring training tickets prices in light of the economy. "And keep in mind," Frank added, "there's also going to be the berm seating at the ballpark," referring to tickets to sit in the grass behind the outfield fences, which will cost $8 or $10, depending on the game.

At least we've finally answered the question about the McCourt's financial situation that's been hovering about since last year's deals. It's as bad as their shameless factor is high. I've tried to be supportive of them as they learn how to be owners, but this is just sleazy.

Ratt has hit the nail on the head in 37 and 47 . The problem is NOT that the owners are bracing fans against the possibility that neither of the big free agent fishies will be caught on the Dodgers line this offseason. After all, even if the economy were flourishing, there's one Manny and one CC and all 30 teams think both would look great in their uniform. There will be a minimum of 28 disappointed teams this offseason. So it might not have happened anyway.

Add in the economic uncertainty and everything goes out the window. Everyone is being a little more cautious, and the fact that McCourt might be cautious, too, isn't a sign of anything at all. If he bites on CC, but -- and this is just an example; I don't have any particular knowledge of the situation -- later faces a margin call on some other investments that he can only meet by selling the team, well, that doesn't do him any good.

If we don't sign a big free agent--if we end up with Andy Pettitte, Jack Wilson, and a more depleted farm system--we need to start a clock on how long it takes to get ground broken on those forty youth fields. Because I'm guessing they will be forgotten quickly.

The Pirates can tell the world that they want Hu, Young, and another young player for Jack Wilson and his $7,000,000 contract but the Dodgers don't dare insult the world by asking for the same type players for Pierre?

Salaries are outrageous, more so given the state of the economy, but Manny and Raffy had better years than the President. While the exorbitant spending needs to be reigned in, I'm not sure that Raffy and Manny are the contracts where Ned should dig his heels in. Schmidt and Pierre come to mind...Manny got the job done. Raffy's back is problematic to be sure, but he sure made a hell of a comeback this year, he's only 31, and appears to be in good shape(how about that Andruw?).There are too many questions up the middle to let Raffy get away. Sign him and you can concentrate more on other infield needs. Manny...shirt sales alone...come on. Pitching is problematic and I wonder if a different pitching coach is in order...just thinking out loud.

I certainly hope that Ned and the Dodgers don't give up on Hu. I can't believe that his 2007 minor league numbers were that much of a fluke. He certainly seemed like the natural replacement for Furcal at the end of the 2007 season.

So I assume it's normal, then, to feel loads of angst about turning 40? Because I certainly have been. "Oh woes me, I haven't finished all the things on my Must Do/Be By 40 Checklist! I am a failure" etc. That kind of thing? It comes in waves. But right now I'm in that "it's just a number" mindset. If I should survive, thankyoucomeagain.

I think people are over reacting to Jaime McCourt's comments. First of all, she isn't the spokesperson for the baseball side of the franchise. It wasn't Frank or Ned making the comment. Maybe she shouldn't have said anything, since she obviously wants the fans to spend their money on the Dodgers (rather than charity) but it isn't unreasonable to reflect from time to time, that so much could be done with the millions of dollars that are paid to baseball players.

Do the Red Sox or Yankees ask their fans would you rather have more ball fields for inner city youth or have a good team? This is just ridiculous, if you're a ML team then you owe it to fans to field the best team you can. Also as a big market team that has great attendance they positively owe it to the fans to put out a highly competitive team. If they can't do this , or won't do this, then they should sell the team to someone who can.

Yikes. We can't sign top FA's, we can't hold onto stud prospects, we can't get value out of stud prospects, we can't sign a Kyle Blair type in the draft, we have a crap GM who thought Juan Pierre was a good deal at 5/45, I mean why am I rooting for this team?

Was looking at the draft order and found it funny that every team in the NL Western Division will have drafted by the 18th pick. Not a bad deal, go to the NL Championship Series and still get the 17th pick in the draft. Assuming they get it of course and don't go off and sign a pointless Type A.

Is there anybody other then CC that we would be comfortable losing our number one pick for? If Frank really wants to save money he could sign one of those Type A relief pitchers and skip the bonus he'd have to pay the 1st round pick. I think we used to call that a Sabean Special.

79
Why the assumption that Jamie doesn't have as much input into the baseball side as Frank? I agree that to much is being made of the comments but there are some very telling comments being made. Frustration with the production of Ned's free agents is clearly being vented in a subtle way. It surely looked to me like a warning shot over the bow about lowering expectations for this years budget but then I'm biased on that subject.

84Meanwhile, with word getting out that Pettitte is consorting with Torre, who still is loathed by some of the Yankees' upper management people, Pettitte surely hopes that the Yankees increase their offer.

Loathed is a strong word...I didn't realize Torre had fostered such ill will.

85 If that is truly the way the Frank and Jamie feel, why is Colletti even back for this season? I have to think that the McCourts are currently having some real financial issues. If we don't sign any of the three big FA's or even any of the second tier SPs I see our team finishing 3rd or 4th place in the West next year. Unless of course Andruw pulls his head out, Bills is fully healed and Kershaw lives up to his potential.

85 Clearly the comment about guaranteed contracts for players who "can't play anymore" was a shot at Schmidt and Jones (guaranteed $29 million in 2009), and probably the guy who signed them too. I wonder how often Jaime reminds Frank that she wanted Kim Ng as GM?

92 Good point, but this seems to be evidence that Colletti is more a figure head than actual GM. If the McCourts are calling all the shots now (especially in lieu of Jamie's comments) this may be the most disappointing offseason that I can remember in my 22+ years of being a fan.

Yikes. We can't sign top FA's, we can't hold onto stud prospects, we can't get value out of stud prospects, we can't sign a Kyle Blair type in the draft, we have a crap GM who thought Juan Pierre was a good deal at 5/45, I mean why am I rooting for this team

95
Why, it seems plausible they kept Ned to do all the things a GM does besides player acquisitions but that those will be held to a higher sniff taste then ever before. I surely disagree with Bhsportsguy that Ned needs to be extended or fired. The McCourts have it completely within their power to make sure he does not do any damage to the future.

Anyway if anyone is interested in showing off their Dodger Management skills I've started off a contest where you would guess the Dodger Budget in 2009 and all free agents signed > 2 Million.
http://www.truebluela.com/2008/11/26/673561/budget-contest

Let's take a loot at the teams production as a whole last year that managed to outscore it's opponents 700-648. Where could this team reasonably improve with either in house options or lower tier FA's? (assuming a payroll cut for next year.)

I think it's safe to assume C, 1B are pretty sure bets to be better this year. 3B is I think at worst the same with a lot of real upside possibility assuming DeWitt gets the job. Our OF trio last year combined for a line of .284/.348/.448 (OPS+ 108) and -25 on defense. If we don't sign an OF'er Andruw Jones could be the make or break point of the season, if he's right, could that trio match that line of 108 OPS+ or come close? Probably, and it's reasonable to expect the OF defense to be much much better. Now, to adress our other holes SS and 2B. A full season of Hu, would be better the +7 number on defense. He should destroy that number, just a question if he can come close to the 77 OPS+ number. Now to 2B, sign Orlando Hudson maybe? If you do that's a massive upgrade at 2B, his offense will probably be better than the 98 OPS+ number and his defense would probably be at least 20 plays better than what we had last year. So, with signing just Orlando Hudson there is a very real possibility to expect a team to score more runs and play better defense than last year.